• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

Started by Tarkus, May 03, 2007, 08:47:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

jdenm8



"We're making SimCity, not some dopey casual game." -Ocean Quigley

Tarkus

D'oh!  Somehow I failed to see that legoman786 had Type A Avenue TuLEPs on that intersection.  That would totally explain it.

-Alex

legoman786

Either way, we're gonna have to wait for a fix then? Not griping, just kinda bummed that it turned out the way it did.

Actually, if I remember correctly, I've been lurking with the community since RHW pre-alpha.

You're awesome, Tarkus, and the community as a whole.

I wish I could spare the time to read on pathing and editing. One more set of hands would definitely mean help, regardless how big or small.

jdenm8

Hm... It's something that could be changed to allow its use, but it's a bit of a change to allow for one configuration of TuLEPs (But then again, there's one less fiddly little OWR Puzzle Piece to make)


"We're making SimCity, not some dopey casual game." -Ocean Quigley

legoman786

#2224
I'm gonna try a Type-B intersection there. See what happens.

No dice... Straight through paths don't even line up. Should have expected that. Oh, well.

Tarkus

Thanks for the kind words, legoman! :)

Quote from: jdenm8 on May 23, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Hm... It's something that could be changed to allow its use, but it's a bit of a change to allow for one configuration of TuLEPs (But then again, there's one less fiddly little OWR Puzzle Piece to make)

Part of the reason for having OWR "SIPs"-type pieces is for the signalization, which doesn't work natively on the OWR, in large part due to the whole tidal-flow thing--one actually wouldn't be necessary for the exact situation show here, however.  Redesigning the TLA-5 paths slightly might allow TuLEPs to be used more flexibly along the network . . . I'll have to look into it further.

And speaking of OWR intersections, I've fixed up the MAVE-4 and MAVE-6 Long-Ts with the OWR-3.  The fix is attached below.  I've actually optimized the paths a fair bit and hopefully, you'll like the results.  As always, just unzip the archive into your Plugins\Network Addon Mod\Network Widening Mod folder.  I'll see if I can get it attached to the sticky post as well.

-Alex

Kitsune

I got a question... why does the NMAVE-4 and MAVE-4 have different capacities?
~ NAM Team Member

Tarkus

Quote from: Kitsune on May 26, 2011, 02:18:07 PM
I got a question... why does the NMAVE-4 and MAVE-4 have different capacities?

The NMAVE-4 is a single-tile network, while the MAVE-4 is a dual-tile network.  While with DIPs, it is possible to trick the game into increasing the NMAVE-4 capacity above the default Road capacity, it's not possible to get it on par with the MAVE-4.

-Alex

MandelSoft

^^ That's because the NMAVE is a single tile network and the MAVE is a dual tile network. And with SIP's you van only increase capacity by about 25%, and not double it...

EDIT: Alex was just a little bit faster with his reply ;)
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

Opkl

Is the NMave4 going to be in the next release?

Tarkus

Quote from: Opkl on May 26, 2011, 02:52:27 PM
Is the NMave4 going to be in the next release?

Yes.  It'll be one of 3 new networks in Version 2.0, along with the triple-tile TLA-7 and AVE-6.

-Alex

GDO29Anagram

Quote from: Tarkus on May 26, 2011, 12:09:38 PM
Actually, a DIPped MHW would have a higher capacity . . . the Maxis Highway capacity figures generally shown operate on the unit of a single-tile, rather than the full-span capacities shown in the RHW's capacity table.  In the Medium capacity version, a 2-tile span of DIPped MHW would have a capacity of 37500.

I was actually gonna ask about DIPing the two-tile networks, such as AVE-4. Has it been experimented on the diagonals, especially the shared-tile part? It might alleviate the capacity problems associated with it, but it would still fall short of the full capacity. (At least it's better than nothing.)
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

Opkl

Quote from: Tarkus on May 26, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
Yes.  It'll be one of 3 new networks in Version 2.0, along with the triple-tile TLA-7 and AVE-6.

-Alex

How will TuLEPS work for the NMAVE-4? From the pictures you showed, it looks very compact. Will one of the lanes be turned into a turning lane like for the ARD-3 to left turn piece? Or will it spread onto the next tile?

ivo_su

In the next version of NWM 2.0 new network appears AVE - 6 (god bless her) and I wondered whether it could be connected in a similar manner with OWR-3 as it makes it AVE-4 and OWR-2.
Bothers me, however, that the OWR-2 + OWR-2 = AVE-4 is obtained so that tile + tile = 2tiles while in the future we will have a situation where 1 +1 must = 3

Ivo

GDO29Anagram

Quote from: ivo_su on May 26, 2011, 05:00:56 PM
In the next version of NWM 2.0 new network appears AVE - 6 (god bless her) and I wondered whether it could be connected in a similar manner with OWR-3 as it makes it AVE-4 and OWR-2.

If you're talking about an AVE-6 to dual OWR-3 transition like the AVE-4 to dual OWR-2 transition, the problem is that you're going from three tiles to two, like with the RHW-6C to RHW-4 transition.

Even I thought about that once, but such transitions are still yet to be developed; They aren't even planned right now. I would foresee two transitions, though: The compact one (No 1-tile gap between OWRs) and the symmetrical one (Has the 1-tile gap).

Makes me wonder if there's also an AVE6-MAVE6 transition down the proverbial road... There'd be a lot of transitions to make...
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

ivo_su

Interesting problem eh?
This whole idea came upon me when I thought about EL - networks because then the parts of EOWR-3 could be built like the EAVE-6 (there will be no need for medians)
but as you said does not seem as simple as it is will be great conundrums in NWM 3.0 when you start planning it.

GDO29Anagram

#2236
Can you guess what this is?



I feel like the NWM needed this accessory. No truck lots for the NWM, so that your NWM roads don't get clogged by trucks, just like BRF's set of traffic control lots. I also made two HOV lots for AVE-2 and OWR-1, but had no success with the OWR-1 HOVie. Never mind, I got it working; Forgot that the OWR direction flips when plopping these.

Also keep in mind that I'll also plan a set for the new NWM networks, once NWM v2 is out.

What do you think so far? Looks almost ready for release, but I want to see what you guys think first.


It's now released on the <a href="http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/files/file/26285-traffic-restriction-lots-for-nwm/">STEX</a>.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

jcmpaz

Hello, I was wondering if somebody can help me. I had install the MAVE-4&MAVE-6 No Grass in the NWM folder, but it's not working :'(. For me it's weird because I installed the Street Side MOD for MAVE-4 1 and does work for me. I'll appreciate anyones help.

skyscraperC3

I have a question regarding the NWM capacities. Referring to FAQ #17, then why is the OWR-1 the same capacity as the default OWR-2, and why are OWR-4 and OWR-5 the same capacities? Sorry if I sound critical; I don't mean to sound angry. If this question has already been answered, I apologize, and it'd be great if you could direct me there.
skyscraperC3

Back for Summer 2011

ivo_su

Quote from: skyscraperC3 on May 29, 2011, 02:04:50 PM
I have a question regarding the NWM capacities. Referring to FAQ #17, then why is the OWR-1 the same capacity as the default OWR-2, and why are OWR-4 and OWR-5 the same capacities? Sorry if I sound critical; I don't mean to sound angry. If this question has already been answered, I apologize, and it'd be great if you could direct me there.
I think I know the answer. The main problem is that Tarkus and NAM team did not participate in the construction of Sim Sity 4. Maybe if they were helped least EA and MAXIS this and many other illogical problems would not exist.
So the reason is that the game into account the capacity of the tile area and not counting lanes. As you put your question OWR -1 and OWR-2 are a tile and that capacity is the same. Similarly with OWR - 4 and 5 that are 2 tiles.
Just the game itself is an important area which is occupied on the map, therefore, even if we AVE-10 which is 3 tiles it will be more useful than AVE-6 if it takes three tiles.
Yes it is bad for everyone but Alex and others have shown that fathers excel Sim Sity and hope that it someday may come up with a solution.
Just out of Maxsi's were not sufficiently aware of what they do.
I hope I was helpful ....

Ivo